Table-breaking Campaigns?

[Rhocian Xothara]

What is that one campaign that you've never been able to finish, usually because of drama or something else that ends up breaking the table up?

For me, it's 'Curse of Strahd'. It has failed numerous times for numerous reasons; the main one usually being drama.

Other times it has been due to Strahd himself. As D&D module book villains go, he's a walking nightmare. We've TPK'd a few times... which then led to drama, which then led to the dissolution of the table ^^;

I'm confident it's not a player-specific issue, too. I've played in dozens of campaigns and modules without issue. Just finished Dragon Heist with one group and Saltmarsh with another. Just started Tomb of Annihilation without issue, too.

Furthermore, the DM running the current Strahd game I'm in has admitted that it's the one module he can't seem to complete, too. Either drama breaks the table up, or Strahd wins. So we've dubbed our group "Strahd Must Die! :smallbiggrin:

Anyone have a similar bugbear campaign?

[Kane0]

Princes of the apocalypse, every time you get access to earth elementals.

Siege monsters; double damage vs objects. Table never stood a chance.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I will second CoS.

I have run it seven times. I have completed (by TPK) once, and PPK followed by rage and rage quit. I've had three disintegrate by drama and priorities changing. My 7th iteration is still going, but it had players quit. The players remaining seem very determined and are very cautious. I expect they will TPK though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Princes of the apocalypse, every time you get access to earth elementals.

Siege monsters; double damage vs objects. Table never stood a chance.
Cackled, I did. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Princes of the apocalypse, every time you get access to earth elementals.

Siege monsters; double damage vs objects. Table never stood a chance.

PCs should have used tactics to keep the elemental away from the strategically-important tables.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Buckle up.

We were playing a game of Vampire from White wolf. The thing you have to understand, our DM is incredibly smart. Absolutely brilliant. But he sucks at reading people and using that knowledge to maximize their enjoyment of the game.

See this is a problem because in our group of 4 we had two players who really, REALLY, wanted to play Black Trench coat cool vampire guy characters. Wearing suits, getting money, rolling in the club and murdering fools. Now they aren't going to say that. But that's what they wanted.

Unfortunately for them, this was not that type of game. See our DM had a brilliant fantastic idea, and he also as a player and DM loves the struggle. You don't get to be a hero or cool guy immediately. You gotta struggle first. Suffer. ONLY Then can you appreciate the sweet power that you have earned.

This was not a fun Vampire game. Oh no.

Our Vampire "Allies" barely ambivalent
Location? Camden New Jersey Docks District
Humans in the area? All tough SOB's who survived a blood purge
Gargoyles and Golems? Yes
Werewolves in the area? Yep
Frequent humanity checks because of trauma and PTSD? You bet.


We scratched and crawled our control over our territory. And see, while our two "edgy" players floundered. Me and the other guy thrived. This was our jam. The game was about exploring the spiritual side of what it means to be human. Who are you in the dark? When the chips are down and everything in LIFE is against you, WHO. ARE. YOU? That was this game. Managing your humanity was critical. Finding ways for your character to make peace with themselves and their environment was important. If you tried playing the normal vampire game you were going to lose.

See our DM warned us this would happen. He explained that this wasn't really a normal game. That we needed to come in with characters who we didn't really know. That we could explore and experience as the game went on. To discover who our characters were through adversity.

Despite this communication, the other two players never really "Got" it. They didn't really understand what this was about. And it caused friction.

See, the reason life was so crap against us. That it seemed like everything we did was difficult? We had been Job'ed. The devil and God made a bet on us. Whether through it all we would ascend and transcend our vampirism and reach Golconda? Or would we fall into diablorie.


At the end. What did us in was one of the players, still thinking it was regular old vampire masquerade, thought he would be clever and perform the trick of having each of us drink his blood. Which broke the social contract of the game with the players. He wasn't clever. It's just that there was this idea that we weren't doing that to each other. That this game wasn't about politics within our group and outmaneuvering each other for power. Alas, despite all the hints and clues, he didn't get the memo.

The best Vampire game I have ever been in ended that night. I've never had more atmosphere, questions, mood, tone, fear, and emotional storytelling than in that game. And it ended because some players couldn't let go of the game that they wanted, and enjoy the game that they were getting. And our DM didn't understand how to read those emotional beats and really help them understand the game. In the end, the game ended not because characters couldn't trust each other. But the players.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I had a campaign back in 4e that never finished because, while well liked, was grating on me personally on account of how frustrating it was adapting 4e for what I wanted. Once 5e came out, I all but abandoned it.

Now, that's not weird, but here's what is- I've been asked for a resolution to the plot in it a few times. So in one of my first 5e campaigns, I decided to have a day with some planar nonsense that would give closure to the events of that campaign.

And that's where that campaign died.

This annoyed people too, who wanted closure for that campaign. I had my chance in another campaign a bit later, which tackled similar issues in a world that would allow for some crossover.

And this is where that campaign died.

Further on, new campaign, extremely beloved, my players made me promise not to get too fixated on other campaigns over this one. Then we get to a point where a player decides to reference all of the above unfinished campaigns in their character backstory.

And so that's the moment where this campaign died.

It's not even intentional, something external always happens. The first was me getting burnt out, then the other three all died to drama. My lesson is, don't bring up dead campaigns in your current one. Death is apparently contagious.

[Rhocian Xothara]

~Post about VtM~

This was a ride.

D&D is my primary tabletop jam, but VtM is a very close second, and... yeah. It requires intelligence.

It's a fantastic, gritty, intoxicating game where the highs are absolute ecstacy, but the lows? Oof. Rougher than a badger.

I play in a Sunday morning game. I'm in the UK - as are the other two players - but the Storyteller is from Virginia. He is nocturnal and happily runs this at like 2am his time. Our running joke is he is legit a vampire whilst the rest of us merely play at being one. The fact he usually calls time on the game with the rising of the sun is thematically brilliant, even if it's like 12 noon here.

What we've learned in VtM is to get comfortable with playing to our strengths whilst accepting that we're gonna suck outside of our comfort zone. The good news is even though we're just three players, we've got our bases covered nicely.

I play Alexander Silver, a 9th-Gen Ventrue roleplayed pretty much like Tom Ellis' 'Lucifer'. Storyteller eats this up - the fact I'm a well-spoken Brit really helps. His strengths are charm and money. I have four points in Resources; Presence and Dominate get used a lot, and I have points in things like Finance, Politics, and a little in Law (you don't get this rich without knowing legal loopholes...). I focus mostly on social attributes.

Tom plays Morgan, a Nos. He's the walking trenchcoat that rather comically houses all of the guns. Cool moments include blowing off a vamp's leg with a 12-bore without even removing it from inside the coat, keeping it unseen. He's the shortest of the lot, but is in a weird way the 'muscle'. He will **** up an entire warehouse whilst whistling nonchalantly. Most of his ability points are Physical stuff.

Lillian plays Elysia, a Lasombra girl. She's quiet but calculative, with excellent mental stats. She's not great in a fight, nor in a social encounter, but will find ways for us to not get into hot water in the first place.

VtM is - or at least very easily can be - a very brutal game. We're all relatively new to it; having only started playing it a couple of years ago. Survival generally seems to depend on how well we have each other's sixes. If we have to start second-guessing each-other then that's really gonna throw a wrench in our party dynamic.

TL;DR: I could see where your story was going, just from being familiar with VtM. There's just too much scope for power-grabbing.

[Pex]

My own campaign. There were times when I thought it was my DMing, that I was doing something wrong to have people quit. Maybe I was. I know I've made mistakes, like anyone. However, other times running the same campaign, the same adventures the players have a blast. In some cases one or two players quit while the ones who remain are having a blast. I've come to the conclusion that it is me, but I'm not doing anything wrong. It's a clash of styles. I run a light-hearted game. I run theater of the mind combats, though for my current campaign I am purposely using the grid more which I do find fun and agree it is making the game better. A particular adventure may be serious but there's a joke to it. One of my favorites I call Brady Bunch of the Corn, which is exactly what it sounds like. The party enters an area of overgrown plant life. In a clearing they are attacked by a scarecrow, a helmed horror (or Animated Armor depending on level), and a dire lion. Later they enter a town where they find all the adults dead and their bodies positioned as if they were alive. They soon hear 6 singing children bards Greg, Marsha, Peter, Jan, Bobby, and Cindy who attack them led by a 7th child, a cleric named Oliver, who is their leader. I've had players think it stupid and leave while others find it hilarious and enjoy every moment of it. Currently I'm running Dragonheist to give myself structure, but I still run it in a lighthearted way. The players are enjoying it.

It's me, but it's not me. I can enjoy playing in a serious game, but I don't run one and some players cannot accept that.

[Rat Army]

My party and I failed to complete Lost Laboratory of Kwalish. One of my party members almost never showed up and another had to get a 2nd job after his wife was laid off.

We made it into the cave system, and there the PCs remain. Forever in a dark cave.

[BoutsofInsanity]

This was a ride.

D&D is my primary tabletop jam, but VtM is a very close second, and... yeah. It requires intelligence.

It's a fantastic, gritty, intoxicating game where the highs are absolute ecstacy, but the lows? Oof. Rougher than a badger.

I play in a Sunday morning game. I'm in the UK - as are the other two players - but the Storyteller is from Virginia. He is nocturnal and happily runs this at like 2am his time. Our running joke is he is legit a vampire whilst the rest of us merely play at being one. The fact he usually calls time on the game with the rising of the sun is thematically brilliant, even if it's like 12 noon here.

What we've learned in VtM is to get comfortable with playing to our strengths whilst accepting that we're gonna suck outside of our comfort zone. The good news is even though we're just three players, we've got our bases covered nicely.

I play Alexander Silver, a 9th-Gen Ventrue roleplayed pretty much like Tom Ellis' 'Lucifer'. Storyteller eats this up - the fact I'm a well-spoken Brit really helps. His strengths are charm and money. I have four points in Resources; Presence and Dominate get used a lot, and I have points in things like Finance, Politics, and a little in Law (you don't get this rich without knowing legal loopholes...). I focus mostly on social attributes.

Tom plays Morgan, a Nos. He's the walking trenchcoat that rather comically houses all of the guns. Cool moments include blowing off a vamp's leg with a 12-bore without even removing it from inside the coat, keeping it unseen. He's the shortest of the lot, but is in a weird way the 'muscle'. He will **** up an entire warehouse whilst whistling nonchalantly. Most of his ability points are Physical stuff.

Lillian plays Elysia, a Lasombra girl. She's quiet but calculative, with excellent mental stats. She's not great in a fight, nor in a social encounter, but will find ways for us to not get into hot water in the first place.

VtM is - or at least very easily can be - a very brutal game. We're all relatively new to it; having only started playing it a couple of years ago. Survival generally seems to depend on how well we have each other's sixes. If we have to start second-guessing each-other then that's really gonna throw a wrench in our party dynamic.

TL;DR: I could see where your story was going, just from being familiar with VtM. There's just too much scope for power-grabbing.

That sounds like a dream. It's actually the one system I want to go back to the most out of all the systems out there. When the game was good, it was amazing. Our group is all experienced Dungeon Masters. Out of our group he was the best at setting mood and tone. Just crushed it. What was frustrating is we all had our strengths, but the two players whose style clashed just didn't get "it". They didn't really understand what this game was about, or if they did, thought it was stupid that they couldn't just do cool vampire stuff. But our group was soooo solid.

Like I said, the player trust being lost was the problem. But damn, I loved that game. The system just evokes a mood and tone that his hard reached elsewhere. What was even better? We used google maps to navigate the area, because we were in Camden New Jersey Central Water front. 1299 Front St. Camden NJ was our base.

[Rhocian Xothara]

That sounds like a dream. It's actually the one system I want to go back to the most out of all the systems out there. When the game was good, it was amazing. Our group is all experienced Dungeon Masters. Out of our group he was the best at setting mood and tone. Just crushed it. What was frustrating is we all had our strengths, but the two players whose style clashed just didn't get "it". They didn't really understand what this game was about, or if they did, thought it was stupid that they couldn't just do cool vampire stuff. But our group was soooo solid.

Like I said, the player trust being lost was the problem. But damn, I loved that game. The system just evokes a mood and tone that his hard reached elsewhere. What was even better? We used google maps to navigate the area, because we were in Camden New Jersey Central Water front. 1299 Front St. Camden NJ was our base.

The good news is that as D&D has gotten more popular in recent years, some of that has trickled over into other systems. I don't think I'm confident enough to run a VtM game myself yet, but it's definitely a system I want to get more 'into'. It's just hard to find a good group that knows and plays the system, so I'm grateful for my sunday game.

Our setting is Los Angeles, based loosely on the events of the VtM:B video game (not in terms of quests etc, but a lot of the notable NPCs are in it). There are limitations with it, but we were brand new players when we started and I think it was a way to introduce us to the WOD games.


My own campaign. There were times when I thought it was my DMing, that I was doing something wrong to have people quit. Maybe I was. I know I've made mistakes, like anyone. However, other times running the same campaign, the same adventures the players have a blast. In some cases one or two players quit while the ones who remain are having a blast. I've come to the conclusion that it is me, but I'm not doing anything wrong. It's a clash of styles. I run a light-hearted game. I run theater of the mind combats, though for my current campaign I am purposely using the grid more which I do find fun and agree it is making the game better. A particular adventure may be serious but there's a joke to it. One of my favorites I call Brady Bunch of the Corn, which is exactly what it sounds like. The party enters an area of overgrown plant life. In a clearing they are attacked by a scarecrow, a helmed horror (or Animated Armor depending on level), and a dire lion. Later they enter a town where they find all the adults dead and their bodies positioned as if they were alive. They soon hear 6 singing children bards Greg, Marsha, Peter, Jan, Bobby, and Cindy who attack them led by a 7th child, a cleric named Oliver, who is their leader. I've had players think it stupid and leave while others find it hilarious and enjoy every moment of it. Currently I'm running Dragonheist to give myself structure, but I still run it in a lighthearted way. The players are enjoying it.

It's me, but it's not me. I can enjoy playing in a serious game, but I don't run one and some players cannot accept that.

I want to say: Don't beat yourself up over that. You cannot please everybody, try as you might.

My Saltmarsh game that just ended; our party was stupid as all hell. We had an Artificer in the group who bulk-bought lemons and other similar fruit. He hollowed them out and filled them with gunpowder (buyable in Saltmarsh as per the module), making "Lemon Bombs". We've razed three buildings to the ground by blowing up the foundations and support walls/pillars. But it's okay because cultists and assassins were hiding in them.

We did wipe an entire (small) dock off the face of the map though. My character - a Red Dragonborn Barbarian - was blown clear into the sea. Yay for fire resistance; it saved my scaly hide!

By contrast, the Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation games I'm in are much more serious, and that can get a bit much sometimes. You definitely need to be in the right frame of mind, both to run those games and play in them. Some people eat it up - and I'm a fan of them - but it's sometimes nice to switch your brain off and play like all the D&D memes on the internet suggest the game is played.

[Glorthindel]

The Grim Harvest campaign (Ravenloft AD&D three-parter, Death Unchained, Death Ascendant, Requiem)

And the funny thing is I don't know why; it is an absolutely fantastic trilogy, with some real high and low points, a couple of gut-punch moments to really get the players invested, some very good character moments (there is one encounter early in Death unchained that one of my players still mentions to this day, 18 years later!), and a quite fabulous story turn in the final chapter.

But for some reason, all three times I have ran it, the group has fallen apart midway through (every time during or just after completing Death Ascendant). In one case, the group reformed two years later, but being mid-adventure, with everyone not really able to remember what had happened, I couldn't resume the adventure even though the campaign itself did, and then went on for another two years.

Now, nearly every one of my current players was a member of one of the earlier groups, so i can't run it with any of them as they have all played through the first part and bits of the second, and the third part just doesn't work as a standalone (its too reliant on the events of the first two parts), so I haven't even managed to even run this part once. But one day, maybe I will see it completely through.

[Rhocian Xothara]

Welp, the "Curse" of Strahd has struck again: The CoS game I'm in on Saturdays just ended abruptly.

There wasn't any drama; I think the DM realised that CoS is a game with roots in a very different system, and that even in its 5e form doesn't actually fit the 5e system very well at all. It's hailed as a much-loved module, but the reality is it's also one of the most homebrewed modules. There are entire communities online of people trying "fix" or "improve" CoS - my DM being one of them - and the reality is that it hasn't really worked since 3.5e.

Saying that, despite realising the above, we're now playing Red Hand of Doom.

First mistake the DM has made is thinking that 3.5e PCs are somehow weaker than 5e PCs.
Second mistake is thinking that EL translates somewhat evenly into CR.

We wiped in the opening fight: Five 3rd-level PCs against 12 Bugbears, 2 Hell Hounds, an Orc and a Human Wizard. I did the math and he beat the "Deadly" CR rating by 6,400XP. XD

[Segev]

Welp, the "Curse" of Strahd has struck again: The CoS game I'm in on Saturdays just ended abruptly.

There wasn't any drama; I think the DM realised that CoS is a game with roots in a very different system, and that even in its 5e form doesn't actually fit the 5e system very well at all. It's hailed as a much-loved module, but the reality is it's also one of the most homebrewed modules. There are entire communities online of people trying "fix" or "improve" CoS - my DM being one of them - and the reality is that it hasn't really worked since 3.5e.

Saying that, despite realising the above, we're now playing Red Hand of Doom.

First mistake the DM has made is thinking that 3.5e PCs are somehow weaker than 5e PCs.
Second mistake is thinking that EL translates somewhat evenly into CR.

We wiped in the opening fight: Five 3rd-level PCs against 12 Bugbears, 2 Hell Hounds, an Orc and a Human Wizard. I did the math and he beat the "Deadly" CR rating by 6,400XP. XD

What about CoS makes it bad for 5e? I know next to nothing about it.

[Rhocian Xothara]

What about CoS makes it bad for 5e? I know next to nothing about it.

There's a whole bunch of reasons, but the biggest one is Strahd himself. It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll do my best:

Part of the problem is that monsters in 5e are usually assessed in a vacuum. A Goblin for example is a weak monster - one of the weakest in the Monster Manual - with a 'Challenge Rating' of 1/4. It typically has 7hp; the kind of damage pretty much any class should be able to dish out in one attack at 1st level. It deals 1D6+2 damage on an attack with a +4 to hit - that's lower than a typical 1st-level PC. The AC of 15 is pretty much the toughest thing about it.

However, the reality is that Goblins tend to roam and hunt in packs. They also favour guerilla tactics, with their 'Nimble Escape' feature basically being the Rogue class' Cunning Action. They'll also typically strike when the environment and situation favours them, not the other way around. So in addition to being hard to hit, they can also be hard to spot in the first place. They can easily get a surprise round, and guerilla tactics in environments that suit them mean they can hit you a lot more reliably than you can hit them, and that's assuming you even have a good sense of their numbers. And that's not even taking into account things like Action Economy.

Suddenly that weak-ass monster seems a lot more deadly, right? I have run an encounter where 4 or 5 Gobbos have put two of six 3rd-level PCs on death saves in an encounter before. The players won, but it felt like a pyrrhic victory.

The exact same thing can be said about Strahd von Zarovich.

Granted, he is much more powerful than a Goblin: CR15 as opposed to 0.25. But in a vacuum, looking at his statblock, he is eminently beatable. I have a 10th-level Sorcadin who has beaten a Dragon Turtle in three rounds of combat, and that's a much stronger monster than Strahd.

The reality of course is that Strahd is so much more than a statblock. He's a Wizard and a Vampire, sure, but he's also a General. That means that he will almost never be alone. Even his statblock says he can summon up to 18 wolves to fight alongside him, but the lore surrounding him suggests that he'll have loyal subjects, too. These can be anyone from bandits to assassins, or even a small Army (he is a General, after all).

And that's not considering his Lair Actions in Castle Ravenloft.

The upshot is that unless the party is very overlevelled for the module, or the DM running it is either using kiddie gloves or is just not great at running realistic encounters, Strahd will win almost all the time.

You can of course tone him right down to the point where you ever wonder why he was such a problem to Ravenloft in the first place. All in the name of letting your players win the day, right? But if your players are experienced wargamers who can spot a sandbagging DM from a mile away, will they ever be satisfied?

I don't know what system would suit CoS best. I play a lot of 'Vampire: the Masquerade' for my vampire fix, and even though that can be an absolutely brutal system to play in terms of player experience, it hits different. Even the lows are enjoyable.

I feel like a more realistic version of CoS ported to VtM would be incredible. I just don't have the balls to run it.

Sorry. I rambled a bit, here, but I hope this clears up at least one reason why CoS doesn't work in 5e.

[noob]

PCs should have used tactics to keep the elemental away from the strategically-important tables.

Earth elementals can burrow so you need advanced tactics like "carry the table and ready a jump to get out of reach of the burrowing elemental"

[Waterdeep Merch]

*snip*

Coming from a DM that's run the full module once and parts of it a few more times, with an upcoming game entirely because my regulars love it that much, I can say this is more or less accurate. It's weirdly what makes it so alluring in turn, but you have to get used to a very different set of expectations with CoS, and I suspect this is why it has an equally legendary reputation for abruptly ending and even being reviled by some.

When it first came out, I remember reading from a lot of other DM's that it was an absolute bear to run compared to any other 5e module, and from what I've seen I think that still holds true. I read the whole thing cover to cover multiple times, used a couple guides (including a fairly lengthy breakdown that I printed out and placed in a three ring binder so I could reference it and make annotations), and wrote dozens of pages worth of supplementary material myself. I rebalanced encounters, thought through some of the... dumber aspects of the story (I managed to forget all about the Vistani issues just because when I ran them, they were a complex people with a multitude of factions), and a focus on greater narrative payoff. That is the level of dedication necessary to really pull it off. But as you can imagine, anyone that goes the distance like this is going to end up with quite a game, which would frankly be true about any game imaginable. You could do this to Mines of Phandelver and make an epic out of it, or focus on your own. It's definitely not the sort of published adventure you can just run from the book. Consider that before you dedicate to this time sink.

But what I think draws people to it most of all is the gothic horror element. It's a very popular, if grossly misunderstood, genre. CoS isn't perfect in it's depiction without some work, but the bones are there. Every other 5e game is some different flavor of the typical D&D fantasy game. This is the only one that really isn't. Even Avernus is juuuuuuust silly enough to be more typical overland D&D and to not really work as a horror story. And from what I've seen, whatever writer thought they were making "horror" in Frostmaiden doesn't understand the genre in the slightest. Scary monster tries to kill you isn't horror, that's the most vanilla of D&D.

[Rhaegar14]

Gonna echo Curse of Strahd. My group still plays together, but we abandoned it.

I have come to find that, if you're gonna play a Wizards campaign out of the box, it really, really helps to bring a classically heroic character who will do the thing just because it is the right thing to do. I was the only one of four players who brought such a character and was trying to be moral compass and motivate three others with varying levels of the "why is this my problem?" attitude.

Compounding this issue, our DM really didn't like doing NPC theater because he didn't like talking to himself. Because of this, Irina and her brother never got fleshed out. They felt like a quest objective, not people -- that made it very difficult for me to make other PCs give a damn what happened to them.

Finally, around level 5, we had one new player leave the group and another old one return. That was sort of the nail in the coffin -- the returning player didn't really know what was going on. We ultimately abandoned it for a Deadlands campaign.

[Thunderous Mojo]

What about CoS makes it bad for 5e? I know next to nothing about it.


There's a whole bunch of reasons, but the biggest one is Strahd himself. .

Ahh yes the Devil Strahd. I'm a player in a campaign that started elsewhere and then got 'sucked' into the Mists of Barovia for 5e.

I've also played the original 1e AD&D module...and I will say that the original module is the only module that I've ever TPK'd in.... (twice in a row no less).

Barovia is a tough place...and has been for 40 years.👍

I'm enjoying CoS, but I will not be surprised if TPK #3 for my D&D Curriculum Vitae happens due to the 5e module.

The 5e version of the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind, is a very potent Magic Item....certainly the most powerful iteration that I remember, though.

🔮🧟🧟🧛🏽☠️👻=🍻🤣. A good death, in a RPG..is often more fun than a dull, and fruitful life in a easy campaign...in my opinion.

[Pex]

There's a whole bunch of reasons, but the biggest one is Strahd himself. It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll do my best:

Part of the problem is that monsters in 5e are usually assessed in a vacuum. A Goblin for example is a weak monster - one of the weakest in the Monster Manual - with a 'Challenge Rating' of 1/4. It typically has 7hp; the kind of damage pretty much any class should be able to dish out in one attack at 1st level. It deals 1D6+2 damage on an attack with a +4 to hit - that's lower than a typical 1st-level PC. The AC of 15 is pretty much the toughest thing about it.

However, the reality is that Goblins tend to roam and hunt in packs. They also favour guerilla tactics, with their 'Nimble Escape' feature basically being the Rogue class' Cunning Action. They'll also typically strike when the environment and situation favours them, not the other way around. So in addition to being hard to hit, they can also be hard to spot in the first place. They can easily get a surprise round, and guerilla tactics in environments that suit them mean they can hit you a lot more reliably than you can hit them, and that's assuming you even have a good sense of their numbers. And that's not even taking into account things like Action Economy.

Suddenly that weak-ass monster seems a lot more deadly, right? I have run an encounter where 4 or 5 Gobbos have put two of six 3rd-level PCs on death saves in an encounter before. The players won, but it felt like a pyrrhic victory.



Lost Mine Of Phandever is proof of that. The first combat is an ambush against 1st level PCs. Woe to the player with +0 initiative and not proficient in Perception. Fail the Perception check you are surprised and can't act in round 1. Roll low on initiative, and a goblin (only one if the DM is nice) gets to attack you twice in a row total before you get to do anything. Your PC can die (be making death saves), and it hasn't been 1 minute of playing. Even having better initiative and Perception bad luck dice rolling will kill you. Players can and do win the combat, but it is brutal. It's not an appropriate 1st level encounter, especially not for the intended new player's first D&D combat ever.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Lost Mine Of Phandever is proof of that. The first combat is an ambush against 1st level PCs. Woe to the player with +0 initiative and not proficient in Perception. Fail the Perception check you are surprised and can't act in round 1. Roll low on initiative, and a goblin (only one if the DM is nice) gets to attack you twice in a row total before you get to do anything. Your PC can die (be making death saves), and it hasn't been 1 minute of playing. Even having better initiative and Perception bad luck dice rolling will kill you. Players can and do win the combat, but it is brutal. It's not an appropriate 1st level encounter, especially not for the intended new player's first D&D combat ever.
It's a 5e-ism for sure, and one that can be fun if you understand and expect it but certainly awkward to wrap your head around for normal gamers. A player of mine likes pointing out that all of his most dangerous moments have come from normal guys, the deadliest of which was six guards with halberds when he was level 8 and alone.

I swear WotC hasn't entirely gotten the memo either. They keep designing 'easy' encounters filled with minions that turn hyper deadly and then have 'boss fights' that have trouble surviving three rounds. Individual CR isn't weighted appropriately on the low end, nor is group CR on the high end. A DM that hasn't realized this yet can either bore their players to tears or shred them to bits. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a lot of games have died thanks to that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

It was the first campaign that we tried to play and the experience was so horrendous that the DM for that game hasn't played DND with our group since. It wasn't much better on the player end, the DM was simply following the little instruction the book gives you for that introduction bit. It's a bit a tall order to expect level 1 PC's to get so much done in a single night with little chance to rest and NPC's who actively withhold aid until the city is "saved" despite knowing it will be doomed if the party fails. I know it gets a lot of flak in large part to being written without all of 5E's final design in place but it hasn't aged well even despite an attempt to rewrite it.

I'd like to believe that, when executed well, it's not the worst adventure module in this edition. But so far it's the only one that managed to completely discourage someone from our friend group from playing DND. White Plume Mountain also caused some issue, but not even because of anything specific to that module, it was the Vampire encounter.

Maybe there's something about those Curse of Strahd complaints, nobody seems to like fighting Vampires.

[ff7hero]

Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

It was the first campaign that we tried to play and the experience was so horrendous that the DM for that game hasn't played DND with our group since. It wasn't much better on the player end, the DM was simply following the little instruction the book gives you for that introduction bit. It's a bit a tall order to expect level 1 PC's to get so much done in a single night with little chance to rest and NPC's who actively withhold aid until the city is "saved" despite knowing it will be doomed if the party fails. I know it gets a lot of flak in large part to being written without all of 5E's final design in place but it hasn't aged well even despite an attempt to rewrite it.

I'd like to believe that, when executed well, it's not the worst adventure module in this edition. But so far it's the only one that managed to completely discourage someone from our friend group from playing DND. White Plume Mountain also caused some issue, but not even because of anything specific to that module, it was the Vampire encounter.

Maybe there's something about those Curse of Strahd complaints, nobody seems to like fighting Vampires.

I haven't played Hoard or Curse, but I will say I loved the Vampire encounter in Whiteplume. Although it helped that I was playing a Buffy the Vampire Slayer expy (actually a Kendra the Vampire Slayer expy, but who would recognize that name by itself?) complete with spear and darts that which were just stakes of various sizes. I even quoted/paraphrased another Slayer when he tried to play dead. "Keep cutting until you see dust."

[Kane0]

That HotDQ first night is a damn meat grinder. You have:
- A half dozen planned medium-ish encounters, including an adult dragon that is supposed to be some sort of cutscene
- Potential random encounters that can also include kobolds (read: pack tactics)
- A 1v1 boss fight you are supposed to lose if you get involved instead of letting a random guard get slaughtered

And this is at level 1 with starting gear, so one hit die when you take a rest through the night and no healing potions, alchemical items or ways to get some spell slots back.
Add to that you get little to no help from the people you are supposedly trying to save and you have one hell of a rough night even if you deliberately do the bare minimum to get through it.

[Telok]

Table breaking? Modern published adventures.

Home brew campaign have about a 50/50 to live about two months, but if they get past that they'll last a good year or three. They never broke a group though. What seems to have a nearly 100% group destroying score is official published adventures & campaigns ever since the first Dragonlance module.

[Pex]

Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

It was the first campaign that we tried to play and the experience was so horrendous that the DM for that game hasn't played DND with our group since. It wasn't much better on the player end, the DM was simply following the little instruction the book gives you for that introduction bit. It's a bit a tall order to expect level 1 PC's to get so much done in a single night with little chance to rest and NPC's who actively withhold aid until the city is "saved" despite knowing it will be doomed if the party fails. I know it gets a lot of flak in large part to being written without all of 5E's final design in place but it hasn't aged well even despite an attempt to rewrite it.

I'd like to believe that, when executed well, it's not the worst adventure module in this edition. But so far it's the only one that managed to completely discourage someone from our friend group from playing DND. White Plume Mountain also caused some issue, but not even because of anything specific to that module, it was the Vampire encounter.

Maybe there's something about those Curse of Strahd complaints, nobody seems to like fighting Vampires.

To be fair, White Plume Mountain is not a 5E adventure. It's a 2E adventure that was adapted into 5E rules. The encounter becomes a lot easier if the party is lucky to have a Light cleric who can dispel the darkness.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To be fair, White Plume Mountain is not a 5E adventure. It's a 2E adventure that was adapted into 5E rules. The encounter becomes a lot easier if the party is lucky to have a Light cleric who can dispel the darkness.

They did dispel the darkness, the issue that happened is that one character was charmed by the vampire almost immediately and another was quickly downed afterwords. It was a death spiral of bad luck thanks to vampire charm being particularly strong against them.

I guess part of it would have been the module too, they took some hits from hazards on the way in and didn't have a strong healer.

[Warder]

Hmmm, interesting. We had some issues in Curse of Strahd too, but those came from two party members, not the actual module which I thought was fantastic. It was probably the most fun I've had playing 5e D&D! That having been said, CoS and Ravenloft in general are certainly departures from vanilla D&D, so it may catch players off-guard, and that's what I think happened with our group. We had quite a few in character arguments that spilled over to real life arguments in the case of those two players, which had never happened before. Maybe it was the module's fault after all!

[Kurt Kurageous]

Coming from a DM that's run the full module once and parts of it a few more times, with an upcoming game entirely because my regulars love it that much, I can say this is more or less accurate. It's weirdly what makes it so alluring in turn, but you have to get used to a very different set of expectations with CoS, and I suspect this is why it has an equally legendary reputation for abruptly ending and even being reviled by some.

When it first came out, I remember reading from a lot of other DM's that it was an absolute bear to run compared to any other 5e module, and from what I've seen I think that still holds true. I read the whole thing cover to cover multiple times, used a couple guides (including a fairly lengthy breakdown that I printed out and placed in a three ring binder so I could reference it and make annotations), and wrote dozens of pages worth of supplementary material myself. I rebalanced encounters, thought through some of the... dumber aspects of the story (I managed to forget all about the Vistani issues just because when I ran them, they were a complex people with a multitude of factions), and a focus on greater narrative payoff. That is the level of dedication necessary to really pull it off. But as you can imagine, anyone that goes the distance like this is going to end up with quite a game, which would frankly be true about any game imaginable. You could do this to Mines of Phandelver and make an epic out of it, or focus on your own. It's definitely not the sort of published adventure you can just run from the book. Consider that before you dedicate to this time sink.

But what I think draws people to it most of all is the gothic horror element. It's a very popular, if grossly misunderstood, genre. CoS isn't perfect in it's depiction without some work, but the bones are there. Every other 5e game is some different flavor of the typical D&D fantasy game. This is the only one that really isn't. Even Avernus is juuuuuuust silly enough to be more typical overland D&D and to not really work as a horror story. And from what I've seen, whatever writer thought they were making "horror" in Frostmaiden doesn't understand the genre in the slightest. Scary monster tries to kill you isn't horror, that's the most vanilla of D&D.

Your observations track with my own. IMHO, CoS requires a dedication most DMs won't give to track over 100 named NPCs and their potential interactions, look carefully at book encounters, and try to steer players to build characters that care about the outcomes. I've had no less than two endings due to non-empathetic characters and/or players expecting something like typical DnD. I've learned from the mistakes.

But if they players take the cruelty directly, can't handle PC death (and resurrection via dark gifts), it's over. The problem with CoS is the commitment required from both the players and the DM.

The horror of Rime is that the writers think its totally cool to force players to change alignment/suffer madness by doing things they are practically led to do by playstyle.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The horror of Rime is that the writers think its totally cool to force players to change alignment/suffer madness by doing things they are practically led to do by playstyle.

I've promised not to look too deeply into Frostmaiden due to a player that wants to DM for me and picked it, but this is the kind of thing I keep hearing that makes me sigh.

"You are now frightened and insane."

"No, I'm just frustrated and bored."

Fear and madness mechanics are no replacement for causing actual fear and anxiety. That has to be done primarily through clever narration and delivery.

[Segev]

Fear and madness mechanics are no replacement for causing actual fear and anxiety. That has to be done primarily through clever narration and delivery.

I think it is possible to do fear and madness mechanics that actually impact the player correctly, but D&D doesn't do them that way, typically. To do it, you need fears to be things that have graduated bonuses and penalties, and permit "soothing behaviors" (almost like rituals or taboos) the player can have his character engage in to mitigate them. That monster IS scarier, perhaps because the fear makes it harder to hit, or makes it do bonus psychic damage or the like.

Madness requires that the players all be okay with the DM giving private notes and messages to everyone, telling them what they perceive and possibly ratting out PCs to each other. This lets the DM build paranoia or hallucination or whatever into the individuals' perceptions, and keeps any one player from knowing for sure whether he's the one seeing things...or the others just are missing it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think it is possible to do fear and madness mechanics that actually impact the player correctly, but D&D doesn't do them that way, typically. To do it, you need fears to be things that have graduated bonuses and penalties, and permit "soothing behaviors" (almost like rituals or taboos) the player can have his character engage in to mitigate them. That monster IS scarier, perhaps because the fear makes it harder to hit, or makes it do bonus psychic damage or the like.

Madness requires that the players all be okay with the DM giving private notes and messages to everyone, telling them what they perceive and possibly ratting out PCs to each other. This lets the DM build paranoia or hallucination or whatever into the individuals' perceptions, and keeps any one player from knowing for sure whether he's the one seeing things...or the others just are missing it.

Good ones can be a helpful tool, definitely, but they're still not enough to cause a true horror atmosphere without the right presentation. Dry readings and rote number crunching can't be saved by a competent sanity system, while evocative storytelling can be effective without any mechanics at all.

Having both would be best, but if I were to teach a new DM how to run a horror game, I'd suggest worrying about their narration before trying to figure out how to add mechanical effects.

[Segev]

Good ones can be a helpful tool, definitely, but they're still not enough to cause a true horror atmosphere without the right presentation. Dry readings and rote number crunching can't be saved by a competent sanity system, while evocative storytelling can be effective without any mechanics at all.

Having both would be best, but if I were to teach a new DM how to run a horror game, I'd suggest worrying about their narration before trying to figure out how to add mechanical effects.

Mostly agreed. I do think that having mechanics to help inform and influence player decisions without removing agency will help a lot. Narration is important, but DMs don't need to be master voice actor/story tellers to create the right atmosphere. They can't avoid all description, of course, but well-made mechanics can build the tension at the table without the DM having to master theatrics.

Where I strongly agree, though, is that the presentation method is important. Horror, even more than other genres of tabletop RPG game, requires a careful curation of perception. It's all about what the PCs see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and even psychically (or psychosomatically) sense. It's not that you have to (as the DM) give a florid description of the squamous claws and slimy tentacles, nor the palid pallor of the pale poltergeist, but you don't just say, "the vampire rounds the corner." Instead, you describe the footsteps of the creature that is drawing near. You let the PCs know there are unliving corpses by the odor of decaying death and the sounds of shuffling before they ever come across their first zombie. You describe the rooms they're in, not necessarily in more than a sketchy way ("beaten and weather-worn with holes in the second-floor balcony's floor and railing" is probably sufficient), but enough to give the layout...as the PCs can perceive it. Blind corners don't need to be called out to spook players; they know ambushes can happen.

But a tension-inducing mechanic whereby you call for Wisdom(Perception) checks and add tokens to a bowl for each one that rolls low can be ideal for making players feel uneasy in the manner their characters should be. It doesn't matter what, precisely, that mechanic represents. Monsters that show up in the random encounter, time to the next random encounter, dice rolled when the trap goes off, penalties or numbers of times the DM can inflict arbitrary Disadvantage... the fact that it's filling will build tension. Discovering what it represents, even when it's a bad thing, will actually be a relief, in a way.

Handing players tokens when they seemingly fail checks or take particular actions can also have impact.

[Waterdeep Merch]

*snip*
I've been considering adding a Tension system, ever since coming to the decision that most sanity systems just don't work for what I need them to be. I found it a fairly interesting mechanic in Battle Century G when I read it over, and it adds pressure the way that drawing blocks do in Dread, my erstwhile favorite horror game. What I need to figure out is the how and why it builds, to match the shifting of the dramatic tones from sinister but quiet to frightening and thunderous.

Right now I'm thinking of having it work mainly on time spent in terrifying situations, with the time units dependent on how dangerous it's supposed to be (or perceived to be), and perhaps having it speed up to match the tempo of the session. So it starts per hour, but can suddenly spike to every five minutes if things start getting more horrifying. Each point of tension increases damage dealt across the board, for both the party and the monsters, making quick, deadly encounters more likely as the adrenaline starts pumping.

Throwing blood tokens into a glass dish in front of the players as it happens sounds very fun.

[Segev]

A way to combine sanity and tension would be to give every player a bowl of sanity tokens. Let them spend them to control themselves in stressful situations. Maybe like Inspiration that can be used on saving throws. Maybe to learn a detail or interpret a clue. Maybe just to not gain a madness effect that has some other negative effect. Maybe the party as a while can spend collectively some amount of sanity to negate a horrible effect.

Perhaps there is some floating effect that hinders or disrupts PCs whose sanity is lower than the tension pool currently is.

When they spend it, it goes into the tension pool. Whatever the tension pool does.

[Xervous]

When they spend it, it goes into the tension pool. Whatever the tension pool does.

Quite clearly it’s tension upon the situation. The GM stretches the scene until there’s a snap back to normal, and all the PCs are at risk for stress fractures. Perhaps like omen rolls in Betrayal.

4 players, 5 tokens each. GM rolls 1d20 for <things > with the tension pool being a bonus on the roll. DC 20 bad stuff happens.

[Segev]

Quite clearly it’s tension upon the situation. The GM stretches the scene until there’s a snap back to normal, and all the PCs are at risk for stress fractures. Perhaps like omen rolls in Betrayal.

4 players, 5 tokens each. GM rolls 1d20 for <things > with the tension pool being a bonus on the roll. DC 20 bad stuff happens.

Betrayal at the House on the Hill is a spectacularly fun game. Amazingly so, frankly, for how badly balanced so many of the scenarios are. I think that says that the fun lies very much not in the winning nor losing.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think we're getting on to something here. Simple mechanics to track the possible approach of something terrifying. Delivered right, this could be a very effective mechanic for portraying either horror or regular D&D style danger. Imagine going through a dragon's lair, where this mechanic was used to decide if the dragon learns of your presence and suddenly arrives.

[ad_hoc]

A note about CoS:

The key to hearing Strahd is to get to the room where he is rated to lose.

If the players ignore the Tarokka reading then they don't have much chance. Which is by design. The whole adventure revolves around it.

The only house rules I think I used was to limit the locations to only 1 in the castle.

[Pex]

Betrayal at the House on the Hill is a spectacularly fun game. Amazingly so, frankly, for how badly balanced so many of the scenarios are. I think that says that the fun lies very much not in the winning nor losing.

There are friends of mine who hate the game precisely because they are unbalanced. Sometimes luck is a factor. The Heroes or Traitor wins because the placement of things to make the Goal are in perfect position to make the win happen almost immediately, even in those unbalanced scenarios that favorably benefit the other side. Those same friends of mine don't like it when that happens either. Maybe the game is just not for them, but there are objective problems with the mislabled Underground Lake being the most infamous in the original set.